A omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and human beings suffering

[viole]

I don't see how this 'problem of evil' affects monotheism, it's very vague and out of any context.

Well, it doesn't if the deity is neutral against good or evil. For instance, one amoral deity.

But if a deity is defined as onmi-good then the problem of evil requires explanation. Alternatively, if the deity is omni-evil, then it is the problem of good that needs explaining.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Underground]

If those are the terms, I'd just say that He isn't omnipotent. He's just the most powerful being.

I don't think He is in the completely literal sense of the word. He may be capable of all things that are logically possible, but when it comes to things that are logically impossible (like making 2+2=5), I'm a little skeptical.

So, is Logic more powerful than God?
This would mean at least a coexistence of God and Logic, with Logic as a separate entity, or Logic existed before God.
The profound meaning of your statement is that the God is a servant of Logic, a demiurge.
It also means we could understand God completely because we know logic, which would be at a higher level than he is.

He created anything, he created logic too.
Before the creation there was no 2, no + and no 5.
2+2=4 is his decision.

would still have all the same problems

Sure! But that's another story.

This obstacle is there because it is there, the roll of the dice.

Roll of the dice has no meaning whatsoever with an omniscient God.

These instances you call evil are not actually evil, and it is possible that they weren't intended to be upon creation. It is only 'evil' because you personally find it to be.

Usually the question comes up: Why does God let us suffer if he knows what will make us suffer?

But that only applies to people who believe the world was built specifically for man, which isn't true. God cares just as much about what happens to us as it does to other things. God created a system which works for ALL of these things, and this is the result. It's not perfect, but perhaps it is the best way possible to include all things.

They must be intended to be upon creation. God is omniscient.
Would you laugh looking at a kid having nightmares just because they're not real? Why don't you wake him up? God created the nightmares. Nothing in this world exists that God hasn't created, and even evil as the absence of God has no meaning because absence of everything means nothing.

However, the point of view that God cares about other forms of life is beautiful, but has no meaning again. God decided to put all those forms of life on one world. And also this makes yourself a living sin, as you're constantly killing bacteria to stay alive, and this doesn't explain why God choose to extinct 9 species out of 10 during the evolution of life. An omnipotent being must really be retarded if he tries to find the best possible way to avoid suffering to life creatures and then 9 out of 10 go extinct.

Maybe this is the explanation: God is omnipotent, but retarded.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sure! But that's another story.

No one seems to be relating to this 'story', you might want to try it.

 

[Underground]

I broadly define gods as that which a culture or individual deems worthy of worship.

This is useful only for the anthropological or sociological point of view.

I just revere various aspects of reality as they are without personification. Sun Spirit is just the sun; that super hot blazing ball of hydrogen up there in the sky that literally anchors our planet in space. If that isn't worthy of worship, I sure as blazes don't know what is. XD

I can feel empathic with you about the Sun.
I'm off-grid, with no storage. No Sun, no current.
Each sunny day is a celebration.

revere various aspects of reality as they are is one of the most beautiful things a human being can do.

 

[Underground]

I don't see how this 'problem of evil' affects monotheism

Feel free to show us the reason.
Avoiding to share and discuss is a dangerous, asocial behaviour.
Neither something false you believe will be even a bit truer just because you avoid discussing its contraddictions.

it's very vague and out of any context.

No. God is very vague and out of any context.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

God is omnipotent.
God is omnibenevolent.
Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any..

Think of God as a football coach who tells his team how he wants them to play, then sits on the sidelines to watch and take notes.
He's not going to keep running on the pitch to get the ball himself, or the whole game would be rendered meaningless!
Likewise, think 'Star Fleet Prime Directive' (non-interference)..

 

[The Sum of Awe]

They must be intended to be upon creation. God is omniscient.

Why must they have been created intentionally for suffering? God could be aware that it will cause suffering to a smaller group upon creation but that doesn't mean that's the direct reason for its creation.

Would you laugh looking at a kid having nightmares just because they're not real? Why don't you wake him up? God created the nightmares. Nothing in this world exists that God hasn't created, and even evil as the absence of God has no meaning because absence of everything means nothing.

I doubt God laughs when someone is discomforted. If something is giving us pain, it probably was not created for us to experience, but since we belong to the same world as the things it was intended for we do end up experiencing it. It comes into the world as an object, but not until it meets the eye does it become evil, good, funny, cold, etc.

However, the point of view that God cares about other forms of life is beautiful, but has no meaning again. God decided to put all those forms of life on one world. And also this makes yourself a living sin, as you're constantly killing bacteria to stay alive, and this doesn't explain why God choose to extinct 9 species out of 10 during the evolution of life. An omnipotent being must really be retarded if he tries to find the best possible way to avoid suffering to life creatures and then 9 out of 10 go extinct.

All things are created with a meaning, and when their meaning is up they are no longer needed and 'destroyed'. Destroyed from our point of view, but objectively speaking they are recycled and their parts will be used to create other things (thus that have meaning).

Currently, the skin of my neighbor's puppy has the purpose of keeping fluids in and keeping diseases out. But once the puppy dies, the skin loses that purpose and no longer becomes skin. It becomes a different thing, and therefore a different purpose: it becomes food, and its purpose is to feed insects.

Just because this skin is impermanent doesn't mean it has always been meaningless. The same goes for extinct species. At a time, species X were serving a purpose as being a living organism, but that time has passed, they have stopped being a living organism, and their matter has moved on and recycled into the materialistic matrix that makes our world and found a new purpose.

So why does God do this? I don't know. To be honest, I have always doubted there is an absolute purpose behind it all. The only purpose that there is (the one I spoke up above) is the one that is created simply by being involved, the way it interacted with and effected everything else.

And in my belief, if there is any purpose beyond that, if there is a major One Goal to come out of all of this, the summary of all things until the end of time, it is irrelevant for me or you, because we will have lost our purpose by then. By that time, the purpose of the atoms that make up my arm could be to hold a meteor together, while the purpose of the atoms that make up my leg could be to be a moon revolving around a planet. But because I am neither of those things yet, the only meaning that is relevant to me is the one that is to become of this walking sack of flesh I currently animate.

Maybe this is the explanation: God is omnipotent, but retarded.

I don't know about your god, but my god always counts to potato.

 

[Underground]

Think of God as a football coach who tells his team how he wants them to play, then sits on the sidelines to watch and take notes.
He's not going to keep running on the pitch to get the ball himself, or the whole game would be rendered meaningless!

I love stories like this one.
Each culture and religion has its own metaphors and you really get your imagination wandering around the earth.

But God could keep running on the pitch to get the ball without running on the pitch, or not render a game meaningless and rendering it meaningless at the same time. He is omnipotent. Logic can't be a limitation for him. He has no limitations.
And you would also need to discover who the opposite team is, why is it there in the first place, why God wanted us to play football, why a perfect coach fails to have a team that wins all the time, and how an omniscient God doesn't know how the game is gonna end before it even starts anyway.

'Star Fleet Prime Directive' (non-interference)

Quantify the threshold of development.

 

[Quintessence]

This is useful only for the anthropological or sociological point of view.

I find it useful for beyond that. In particular, I find it useful for promoting an attitude of tolerance and understanding towards the diverse theistic ideas. I value pluralism, and not demanding gods have this or that characteristic is a good way of respecting diversity.

 

[viole]

Think of God as a football coach who tells his team how he wants them to play, then sits on the sidelines to watch and take notes.
He's not going to keep running on the pitch to get the ball himself, or the whole game would be rendered meaningless!
Likewise, think 'Star Fleet Prime Directive' (non-interference)..

So, children cancer, down syndromes, genetic diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes, famines, hip hop, etc. are the result of us playing badly a game we are forced to play with rules defined by someone else?

Oh, yes, I am sure this keeps God off the hook. After all He is sitting there enjoying the game while taking notes and eating popcorn, probably.

BTW. Does Noah flood also count as non-interference?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Underground]

Why must they have been created intentionally for suffering? God could be aware that it will cause suffering to a smaller group upon creation but that doesn't mean that's the direct reason for its creation.

God is aware that it will cause suffering. He is omniscient.
Even not knowing completely the reason that God follows to create things, which is strange, because if logic is higher than God we could understand him, as logic is a brain phenomenon that begins, occurs and ends inside matter, at least we know the reason God follows when he does not create things: one of them is suffering, because he is omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent God does not create smaller groups to make them suffer. This is certain.

I doubt God laughs when someone is discomforted. If something is giving us pain, it probably was not created for us to experience, but since we belong to the same world as the things it was intended for we do end up experiencing it. It comes into the world as an object, but not until it meets the eye does it become evil, good, funny, cold, etc.

Then why are we suffering? God doesn't laugh when someone is discomforted because he doesn't want him to be discomforted. He is omnipotent and any reason for him not to stop that suffering is invalid.
It was created for us to experience. God is omniscient. He knew perfectly.
And if God is not omniscient, why would you believe a single word he says?

All things are created with a meaning, and when their meaning is up they are no longer needed and 'destroyed'. Destroyed from our point of view, but objectively speaking they are recycled and their parts will be used to create other things (thus that have meaning).

Currently, the skin of my neighbor's puppy has the purpose of keeping fluids in and keeping diseases out. But once the puppy dies, the skin loses that purpose and no longer becomes skin. It becomes a different thing, and therefore a different purpose: it becomes food, and its purpose is to feed insects.

Just because this skin is impermanent doesn't mean it has always been meaningless. The same goes for extinct species. At a time, species X were serving a purpose as being a living organism, but that time has passed, they have stopped being a living organism, and their matter has moved on and recycled into the materialistic matrix that makes our world and found a new purpose.

Sure, but we're not dead yet and we probably won't be dead for many years to come, and our children will be alive then, and so on.
This not always happens through suffering: you eat a pineapple, the pineapple ceases to exist as a pineapple and all the vitamins inside become part of your metabolic flow. The pineapple wanted to be eaten because that is its way to reproduce. You wanted to eat the pineapple. No suffering.

Beautiful thoughts, but suffering is involved at any stage and it is not compatible with an omnibenevolent God.

So why does God do this? I don't know.

The right point of view is: why does this happens? Because a God as such doesn't exist.

To be honest, I have always doubted there is an absolute purpose behind it all. The only purpose that there is (the one I spoke up above) is the one that is created simply by being involved, the way it interacted with and effected everything else.

There's no purpose, there can't be a purpose. You can chemically shut down your brain, reality will be still here and there will be no purpose. You have to impose your purpose on reality.
If you had a niarb and not a brain you would be looking for a esoprup.

And in my belief, if there is any purpose beyond that, if there is a major One Goal to come out of all of this, the summary of all things until the end of time, it is irrelevant for me or you, because we will have lost our purpose by then. By that time, the purpose of the atoms that make up my arm could be to hold a meteor together, while the purpose of the atoms that make up my leg could be to be a moon revolving around a planet. But because I am neither of those things yet, the only meaning that is relevant to me is the one that is to become of this walking sack of flesh I currently animate.

That has already happened, all the Carbon on earth has been produced by nuclear fusion in some faraway star. But as i said, this happens through suffering, which is not compatible with a omnibenevolent God.

I don't know about your god, but my god always counts to potato.

My God can count to potato without counting to potato, and you still have to explain why he needs to count to potato if he's omniscient

 

[Underground]

I find it useful for beyond that. In particular, I find it useful for promoting an attitude of tolerance and understanding towards the diverse theistic ideas. I value pluralism, and not demanding gods have this or that characteristic is a good way of respecting diversity.

Likewise peace in a world where every country has nuclear weapons is not really peace, as it's peace out of fear and not out of love, tolerance is sacred if it comes out of love and not of fear, as sacred as the profoundly social attitude to be glad to throw one's beliefs down the toilet when proven false, to contribute to the happyness of human beings.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm addressing it from the western dualistic viewpoint on purpose.

I think you can easily find logical problems with old-time western Christian beliefs and concepts if you want to analyze everything to their logical end. Granted. These are only concepts to help people relate to what is beyond understanding. The general idea of a loving creator God that wants us to be moral and rewards moral behavior and condemns and punishes immoral behavior is OK.

So even though I'm a non-dual eastern believers (as I believe it has the concepts that describe the reality the best) I feel the urge to support Christian belief as long as it is not exclusivist.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The right point of view is: why does this happens? Because a God as such doesn't exist.

From what information that's given, all we can assume is that the reason the way things happen the way they do involves the way they do.

I look forward to replying to the other portions later, i don't have the time to finish right now

 

[Underground]

I think you can easily find logical problems with old-time western Christian beliefs and concepts if you want to analyze everything to their logical end. Granted.

But logical problems can't be found in books that know the boundaries beyond which only darkness remains, and Christians pretend those books are all false.

These are only concepts to help people relate to what is beyond understanding.

I can't locate this statement anywhere in the Bible, and glimpses of the brahman, as you name it, can be found in telephone books too.

The general idea of a loving creator God that wants us to be moral and rewards moral behavior and condemns and punishes immoral behavior is OK.

A unconsciously imprinted idea that being loving is the goal and the reward would be much more effective, as anyone could find evidence of it in its life, and any morality that pretends you to teach how to be moral is in the best case a tautology: not to kill your neighbour, who does not agree, but not to enjoy ad nauseam the pleasures of the body with someone else if you wish, that is not morality, it just means you're disgustingly insane.

So even though I'm a non-dual eastern believers (as I believe it has the concepts that describe the reality the best) I feel the urge to support Christian belief as long as it is not exclusivist.

I do not.

 

[Underground]

From what information that's given, all we can assume is that the reason the way things happen the way they do involves the way they do.

Suffering is about your perception of reality, you can call suffering a perception, but you're only moving backwards and refining your analysis, without solving the problem that God gave you this perception in his omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

 

[Parsimony]

So, is Logic more powerful than God?
This would mean at least a coexistence of God and Logic, with Logic as a separate entity, or Logic existed before God.
The profound meaning of your statement is that the God is a servant of Logic, a demiurge.

I have no problem with that idea.

It also means we could understand God completely because we know logic, which would be at a higher level than he is.

Potentially, but even logic has not always been in tune with our understanding. Quantum physics and relativity have definitely redefined what we thought was logical.

He created anything, he created logic too.
Before the creation there was no 2, no + and no 5.
2+2=4 is his decision.

If you want to believe that, okay. I don't, though.

 

[Underground]

I have no problem with that idea.

If Logic exists indipendently from God, you're assuming that things can actually exists outside God, or before God, or without being created, and you make the hypotesys of God useless. Logic exists independently from God, why not life which is a much more profound phenomenon? Logic is a subset of life.

Potentially, but even logic has not always been in tune with our understanding. Quantum physics and relativity have definitely redefined what we thought was logical.

No. You are confused between illogic and counterintuitive.
Quantum physics is counterintuitive if your knowledge is based on classical mechanics. Both are based on observation, and not on logic.

If you want to believe that, okay. I don't, though.

Omnipotent means omnipotent. No way out.

 

[viole]

I have no problem with that idea.

Yes, but that would imply that logic coexists with God, at least. And, honestly, logic would have a supremacy because it would exist even without God, whereas the contrary would be impossible, at least according to theists who try to get out of problems like "can God create a stone that He cannot move?".

Notice that God is put under test, not logic. God is subordinate. For nobody could possibly put the laws of logic under test without getting into self defeating conclusions or trivial tautologies.

Potentially, but even logic has not always been in tune with our understanding. Quantum physics and relativity have definitely redefined what we thought was logical.

QM and relativity are putting our intuitions under stress test, not the laws of logic. There is no results of either relativity or QM that lead to logical contradictions.

However, as Plantinga correctly pointed out, our beliefs creation mechanisms, like intuition, are unreliable if evolution by natural selection is true. His goal was to prove that natural selection is wrong, but it actually confirmed it and the confirmation comes from the general incredulity that comes from people when confronted with moderns science findings. It is entirely possible that we will never have a complete intuition of reality, for our brains did not evolve for that goal. And this is the reason why we need external tools like the scientific paradigm.

Our intuition is adaptive: it is just good enough so that we can survive in a classical world in which predators do not run at almost the speed of light and macroscopic food is not in a superposition of different states. Beyond this small subset of reality, it is basically useless.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Parsimony]

If Logic exists indipendently from God, you're assuming that things can actually exists outside God, or before God, or without being created, and you make the hypotesys of God useless. Logic exists independently from God, why not life which is a much more profound phenomenon? Logic is a subset of life.

If God is alive then it follows that He didn't create life unless He created Himself. Same thing goes for conscious awareness and morality. If God has those features, then those are not created features. I don't see how logic is a subset of life. Why must we assume that two plus two would equal four only if living things exist?

No. You are confused between illogic and counterintuitive.
Quantum physics is counterintuitive if your knowledge is based on classical mechanics. Both are based on observation, and not on logic.

We derive our sense of logic in part from our observations and in part because natural selection imparted us with a sense of logic that was useful for survival.

Omnipotent means omnipotent. No way out.

As I said before, I don't think God is omnipotent if one defines omnipotence only in the context of being able to change the laws of logic.

Yes, but that would imply that logic coexists with God, at least. And, honestly, logic would have a supremacy because it would exist even without God, whereas the contrary would be impossible, at least according to theists who try to get out of problems like "can God create a stone that He cannot move?".

Notice that God is put under test, not logic. God is subordinate. For nobody could possibly put the laws of logic under test without getting into self defeating conclusions.

I still have no problem with that.

QM and relativity are putting our intuitions under stress test, not the laws of logic. There is no results of either relativity or QM that lead to logical contradictions.

However, as Plantinga correctly pointed out, our beliefs creation mechanisms, like intuition, are unreliable if evolution by natural selection is true. His goal was to prove that natural selection is wrong, but it actually confirmed it and the confirmation comes from the general incredulity that comes from people when confronted with moderns science findings. It is entirely possible that we will never have a complete intuition of reality, for our brains did not evolve for that goal. And this is the reason why we need external tools like the scientific paradigm.

Our intuition is adaptive: it is just good enough so that we can survive in a classical world in which predators do not run at almost the speed of light and macroscopic food is not in a superposition of different states. Beyond this small subset of reality, it is basically useless.

Ciao

- viole

QM and Relativity don't violate logic, but they do demonstrate that certain ideas we once considered "logical" were wrong. It just means that our understanding of logic is sometimes flawed.